Ruth Ann Moorehouse?

Does anyone know what ever became of her? I know that her father Deane is 89-90 years old , listed on the California sex offenders site and really doesn't look a whole lot older than he did back in 69.

There are people on this board that know where Ruth Ann is and what she is doing - but they decided that is better to let her alone because she is living a decent life - (not me - but our esteemed leader and at least one other smart female 'detective' member of our 'fam')

Ruth Ann had a worse growing up than Charles Manson - (so did Dianne Lake) neither has been a criminal or a dark on society.

They both deserve to get a second chance. Personally I would be surprised it Barbara Hoyt was overdosed on LSD by Ruth Ann - it's possible Ruth Ann slipped her some and perhaps scared her into thinking that is was a multitude of tabs - but Barbara Hoyt joined the family when she was above the age of accountability and the other ones were thrust into the family and a life of sex, drugs, filth a nd crime.

They say Ruth Ann surfaces on other sites under the name of Raven or other alias - why would she do that on a free forum or blog when if she wanted to surface even under a pseudonym she could sell her story and find a nice retirement -

Question for Courtney: Are you for or against outing Family members? It wasn't clear to me in your last post where you stand on this issue. I posted, a few weeks ago, that I know where Ruth and her family is living. I also mentioned that Ancestry.Com is the key to finding information on former Manson Family members. i've been using Ancestry.Com and have gotten a lot of pertinent info. since Ancestry.Com has extensive Birth, Marriage, and Divorce records for the state of California and Minnesota, and being that a lot of family members are originally from California, Ancestry.Com has been extremely helpful. As for outing Ruth, I don't need to that. Other people, as well, can find out the same information as I have done; it's putting the time into research.

Grogan - you bet I was in favor of outing him - I'm glad Bret did it - I wouldn't want any children around him ever...

Ruth Ann, Dianne - definately not - they were not at the age of consent and lived there because of circumstances beyond their control.

The girls that were not involved in violence - Kitty, Sherry, no - there by the grace of God go I...

Some of the other girls I don't care to know their whereabouts but as long as they live a fairly good life - it is none of my business - like Nancy, Ella, Sue -
I think they were up to no good but there is such a thing as redemption.

The guys that testifyed against Manson might have done some things that were criminally inclined but I knew guys like that in myself and some are business owners now and pay their taxes etc. LOL

I think they were brave to come forward and tell their stories - specially Juan and Danny -

I'll tell you what changed my mind about a lot of punitive thoughts - this board and some of the people on it - like Cyn - she was the sister in law of TJ Wallerman and to hear her story she paints a compassionate face on him and makes him human and not just one-sided -

Linda Kasabian needs to be watched - I don't care if she was the state's best witness - she continues to live a life that bears knowing her whereabouts -

What about you? What about Commie - and how in the world do you get any information on ancestory.com - it is so difficult to navigate their site I can't even pull up my own information. Are you a member? I've actually thought about paying to join but since I don't know anyone who belongs I'm not sure it's worth the money.

Likewise--it depends on the person. And, like you, I'm not for outing Ruth or Dianne.

Grogan--i agree with the his outing provided by Bret. Ever since I saw the documentary by Hendrickson in which Grogan looks happy to be canoodling with a little girl--No, way! He deserves whatever comes his way. Linda K.--an example of numero uno white trash who permeated the counter culture. The last footage of her, which, I believe is from Inside Edition, she looks like honky tonk gone really bad--way to many cigarettes...way to many late nights at the local saloon. Katie, Sadie, Leslie--whatever happens shall be.

As far as the other women our concerned, I would really be interested in knowing more about Nancy Pitman (Monfort). Seems she holds the key to a lot of information. I would love to see how she looks now. She had the the personality of a pit bull--not very appealing. Not sure how she acts today. I would say, yes, I would not out her if she is living peacefully and not hurting others. And I think from what info. I have on her currently, she has seen the God almighty dollar sign, and the nice things that mom and dad can give her when she no longer professes to live by the rebel yell.

I don't care to know about the other women (for example, Ginny, Sue, Kitty, Cappy, etc..)
at o
BTW, i have free access to Ancestry.Com. I use it frequently--not only for my own family geneology--but to find what I can on Family members. If you want to know more info. about Ancestry, and how it works, and the best way to search, you can send me an e-mail, and I can help you.

[quote author=enuffvinegar link=topic=4060.msg33668#msg33668 date=1244391979]
I also mentioned that Ancestry.Com is the key to finding information on former Manson Family members. i've been using Ancestry.Com and have gotten a lot of pertinent info. since Ancestry.Com has extensive Birth, Marriage, and Divorce records for the state of California and Minnesota, and being that a lot of family members are originally from California, Ancestry.Com has been extremely helpful.
[/quote]

Yes. you are very correct about ancestry.com. After reading your post I went and signed up for a free 14 day trial and in about 1/2 hour using a combo of ancestry.com/google/Zabasearch I am 99% certain I got two of the former girls run down. One of the two (one of the more deserving ones in my own opinion) seems to be pretty well off with a big house and a pool now. I have no intentions of outing anyone . For me it is just curiosity.

I'm glad to know you tried Ancestry.Com; it's helpful, and you can cross check information--that you know you've got the right individual. I also suggest People Finders.Com You can to a basic search for free. And, yes, the one with the big house....you're right. True, it's just for curiosity on my part too--no intention to out anyone.

Grogan--i agree with the his outing provided by Bret. Ever since I saw the documentary by Hendrickson in which Grogan looks happy to be canoodling with a little girl--No, way! He deserves whatever comes his way.

Grogan - you bet I was in favor of outing him - I'm glad Bret did it - I wouldn't want any children around him ever...

I am confused. I thought that Grogan was convicted of murder, not child molestation. How does one crime, for which he was convicted, served his time, and then met the requirements set by the State of California for parole, justify outing his identity based upon something perceived in a movie, or a gut feeling. We do not deny anyone Due Process in this state, and that is what you are doing. His time was served. We may not like the outcome, or the sentence, but he paid his debt. How self-righteous must a person be to believe that they alone have the right to do something like that! Courtney, you have shared stories with us of heavy drug usage, associating with drug traffickers and violent acts. Does that give us the right to share with your family, friends, neighbors, and society your actions, even though you were never charged with crimes, simply because we believe you to have been criminally active in the past? No charge, no conviction, just our belief that you were wrong? It is a very slippery slope.

There is no doubt on this board where I stand on law & order. But there is also no doubt where I stand on the morality of a just and fair society. By your standards, then Ruth should absolutely be outed. While there was no conviction, she was certainly complicitous in the commission of crimes committed by the Family, and as such, should be outed. To hell with the law or what is right, she should not be protected! She may be involve in some nefarious criminal activity today for all we know, so let's be safe and out her now so everyone knows of her past, even if it has nothing to do with her present. While we are at it, let's out gay people even if they do not wish to be outed, for we must know better. Again, how self-righteous that is.

[quote author=courtney link=topic=4060.msg33667#msg33667 date=1244382250]
why would she do that on a free forum or blog when if she wanted to surface even under a pseudonym she could sell her story and find a nice retirement -
[/quote]

Because there ain't no statute of limitations on complicity to murder. Listen to Catherine Share talk now. She speaks slowly and deliberately so as to make sure she doesn't open a can of worms and get charges filed on her. When she thinks she's getting near dangerous topics she starts generalizing in order to protect herelf. It's not too smart to try to cash in on a bloody past.

Just think about what sites like ancestry can to for a stalker though. For a certain price, you can even get unlisted info etc. on a person. To me that is kind of scary, for 39.95 you can get all the info you want on someone..be it your neighbor, your boss, whatever..

I agree that while some information is helpful, the easy access to someone's whole life can be a very detrimental thing.

Can these sites that provide this information in cases that result in harm to a person be sued? Has it been done?

You are right about 99% of what you said Dill - the other 1% is I have never been around any violence at all -God protects fools and drunks and that's the one thing that hasn't happened (keep my fingers crossed because I am the world's biggest coward...that's why my husband taught me martial arts)

Also speaking of husbands I have one of the greatest and the straightest and how he has lived with me and all my mess I don't know...

But remember this - you are an attorney and I am not so I can say that I don't want people like Clem Tufts living next to me and not to have his 'due process' and it doensn't mean anything to anyone because I'm just a former actress and designer and everyone knows we make our living mouthing off about things and are whacked out anyway...

But you can't...your particular code of ethics (which their aren't many in the theatre since you have to step on eveyone you come in contact with to stay employed) demands it...sort of like the Hyporocritic Oath thingy that doctors take...

For an example I had to look up 'due process' I think the only time I've ever heard the phrase is in an Arthur Miller play.... if that tells you anything...

Let me reinterate...I don't give a damn what Scramblehead was convicted of...perception can be the truth to most of the world...just like posession is 9/10th's of the law....LOL I DON'T WANT HIM AROUND AND I'm GLAD BRET OUTED HIM...

But you know I am very fond of you and you can move next door anytime you want and maybe do my legal work 'pro- bono' (I do know that phrase because I like good deals)

I would like to know this from a legal standpoint Dill...how are we going to 'police' and protect ourselves regarding cyber information? Why is this part of the law not seemingly addressed until it involves a crime...for example child porn or miurder YET AND THE INTERNET IS FULL OF OUR INFORMATION!

Just like Cats said - I found out what we pay for taxes on a beach house we have...the address, the amount...whose name it was in....some of it was erroneous but it was scary in so many ways...meaning if Clem read this HE COULD FIND ME!

[quote author=catscradle77 link=topic=4060.msg33686#msg33686 date=1244459915]
Just think about what sites like ancestry can to for a stalker though. For a certain price, you can even get unlisted info etc. on a person. To me that is kind of scary, for 39.95 you can get all the info you want on someone..be it your neighbor, your boss, whatever..

I agree that while some information is helpful, the easy access to someone's whole life can be a very detrimental thing.

Can these sites that provide this information in cases that result in harm to a person be sued? Has it been done?

Just kind of curious.
[/quote]

While I myself am not a lawyer,I seriously doubt any of these generic info sites found on the internet could be sued as all of the info they provide is nothing but public record info. Information that has been available to anyone in the past all along and all that these sites really do is to provide a clearinghouse for this public information that in the past could have been dug up, but only with a LOT of legwork involved.

I would like to know this from a legal standpoint Dill...how are we going to 'police' and protect ourselves regarding cyber information? Why is this part of the law not seemingly addressed until it involves a crime...for example child porn or murder YET AND THE INTERNET IS FULL OF OUR INFORMATION!

Court, that is the question of the day. The challenge is that technology has grown leaps and bounds beyond what is on the legal books. State by state, we are beginning to see laws added to protect it's citizens, but it is very much a patchwork approach. One of the challenges, and there are many, is that a lot of information on the internet is not necessarily new, but rather only a new delivery system. The information is not the problem so much as it is the misuse of information, such as outing someone. You are seeing actions filed more in a civil jurisdiction than in a criminal jurisdiction for two reasons. The ability to seek redress, as well as compensation, is best designed for civil courts, and secondly, many jurisdictions do not yet see such misuses as a criminal matter. It is changing, but will take time. We will also have to address potential constitutionality issues regarding the sites that may release information, almost an electronic argument to what print media has fought for decades.

As we saw last year, in the midwest case in which the young girl committed suicide after intentionally false information was posted about her on MySpace. While this could have, and most likely will still be addressed in a civil forum, the U.S. Attorney's office took a long shot and used federal statutes to gain a conviction in Los Angeles. It was creative and effective, as well as the right thing to do. But, in this case, it was the perpetrator that was charged, not the website, so it is a slightly different scenario than the one we began with.